Jump to content

Talk:2023 Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Vladimir Putin delivering the presidential address in 2023
Vladimir Putin delivering the presidential address in 2023
Vladimir Putin delivering the presidential address
Vladimir Putin delivering the presidential address
Vladimir Putin delivering the presidential address
Vladimir Putin delivering the presidential address

Created by dying (talk). Self-nominated at 22:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC). [struck second image. dying (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)][reply]

  • ALT1: ... that in 2023, the presidential address Vladimir Putin (pictured) delivered to the Federal Assembly was broadcast on large screens in public areas of Russia and the occupied territories of Ukraine? Radzy0 (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is my first full DYK review. A second opinion would be appreciated.
    • Two images in the article have been nominated for deletion with the comment, "not a work from the Kremlin." One of them is included as an alternate in the DYK nomination.
    • The hook, with elipsis and "(pictured) " removed, is 201 characters. Maybe change "simultaneously broadcast" to "broadcast live" or (ALT1) to just "broadcast"?
    • I'm not sure the picture adds much value to the hook.
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article was created on March 5, 2023 and nominated within seven days after creation. The article is 1678 bytes long, so it's long enough. Sourcing requirements are met; two article are in Russian, AGF. The article is neutral in tone, and no plagiarism issues were detected. Earwig says copyvio "Violation Unlikely 4.8%" and the listed source, on manual review, obviously does not have a violation. No dispute templates. BLP requirements satisfied. The hook is properly mentioned and cited inline, and verified by the sources. Radzy0 (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Radzy, I have relocated the notification of review template from this page, to the nominator's talk page, where it is meant to be placed. Flibirigit (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Radzy0, dying, where does this nomination stand? One of the three proposed pictures has been nominated for deletion at Commons, and shouldn't be used for safety's sake; I didn't see any disputes with the other two. Is there anything holding up this nomination aside from the image issues? This has been sitting for six weeks without action, and it would be great to get this moving again. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      BlueMoonset, thanks for asking. admittedly, the only thing holding this up is a lack of time on my part. sorry! dying (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • hey, Radzy0! always happy to see you comment on my dyk nominations. apologies for the delayed response. admittedly, i had been hoping to find the time to expand this article so that its depth would be similar to that of this article, but have been fairly busy outside of wikipedia recently, so have yet to find the time to do so. putin's speech is nearly two hours long, and i had difficulty following it the first time around, and since it has been well over a month now, i think i need to acknowledge that i don't think i will be able to find the time to expand this article similarly anytime soon.
    it was difficult for me to trim the hook down without losing significant meaning, but i also agree that "simultaneously" was the weakest word of the hook, so i agree that your alt1 would probably be the best alternative if one word is to be removed. alternatively, i realized that "broadcast" could be replaced by "shown" as well.

    alt1a: ... that in 2023, the presidential address Vladimir Putin (pictured) delivered to the Federal Assembly was simultaneously shown on large screens in public areas of Russia and the occupied territories of Ukraine?

    alt1b: ... that in 2023, the presidential address Vladimir Putin (pictured) delivered to the Federal Assembly was shown live on large screens in public areas of Russia and the occupied territories of Ukraine?

    i was also unsure if the second photo was free to use, but the editor who nominated the photo for deletion makes a lot of deletion requests, and this deletion request for another photo from the same speech suggested to me that the requester may have made an error. i was hoping that these deletion requests would have been resolved by now, but they are still open, so i'd probably just suggest to the promoter to avoid using that photo; the other two should be perfectly fine.
    i agree with you that the images are not the most appropriate for the hook, but i was unable to find any free photos on commons of the speech being shown on a large screen outside of the venue. i tried looking hard elsewhere for one, and eventually found some photos in sputnik mediabank, the database mentioned in the deletion request linked above, but after looking at their license agreement, i realized that these photos may not be free to use.
    i had also previously been trying to figure out a hook that mentioned the missile test that apparently failed, since i think that angle may be more interesting, but at the time of the nomination, i had trouble getting a hook down to 200 characters that mentioned all the necessary points. i think i finally figured out something that might work.

    alt2: ... that U.S. officials believe a missile test Russia notified the U.S. of, as required by the New START treaty, failed days before Vladimir Putin (pictured) announced Russia's suspension of the treaty?

    Sources: [1] https://archive.today/20230506003839/https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/21/politics/russia-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-test/index.html [2] https://archive.today/20230506003752/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-test-launch-satan-ii-icbm-missile-failed-putin-new-start-nuclear-treaty/

    i may have been staring at this hook for too long to know if it is still too convoluted, so feel free to reject it if you think it is unreadable. note that the test was originally reported to have taken place around the time biden was in ukraine, roughly a day before putin's speech, but it was later reported that test actually occurred three days before the speech. dying (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. I like ALT2 best so far, but as you note, it's a bit cumbersome as is. How about:

ALT2b : ... that, as required by the New START treaty, russia notified the US of a missile test, which US officials believe failed, days before vladimir putin (pictured) announced Russia's suspension of the treaty?

Sources: [1] https://archive.today/20230506003839/https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/21/politics/russia-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-test/index.html [2] https://archive.today/20230506003752/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-test-launch-satan-ii-icbm-missile-failed-putin-new-start-nuclear-treaty/


I'm not sure of the protocol here for the contested picture. Do I remove it from the nomination, or wait for dying to remove it, or just leave it there and indicate that the approval is contingent on not using that one? Anyone? Radzy0 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh, wow, Radzy0, the flow is certainly much improved in alt2b, and done in such a simple way as well. also, although i am admittedly partial to avoiding the use of the shift key, i think having my style spill over to the visible parts of the main page may cause some issues, so i have capitalized a few of the words in alt2c.

alt2c: ... that, as required by the New START treaty, Russia notified the US of a missile test, which US officials believe failed days before Vladimir Putin (pictured) announced Russia's suspension of the treaty?

i also dropped the comma between "failed" and "days" because, technically, the sources don't appear to state when the notification was given. presumably, though, the notification would have come before the test, as it wouldn't be prior notification otherwise, so i would be fine with or without the comma. i would opt for whichever one is less confusing, though i don't know which one that is.
i am admittedly also unsure of the protocol regarding what should be done with images that shouldn't be used. to be clear, i agree that the second image shouldn't be used. i think i am not allowed to remove it, but i don't think striking it would work either, since i think the strikethrough markup doesn't work on images. it just occurred to me that i could strike the caption to try to make it more clear that the associated image shouldn't be used, so i will do that instead. dying (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radzy0 You should keep the image in. The deletion is completely wrong. As per the Kremlin, all material from their site is CC-BY.
@Dying and Radzy0: Not seeing "days before" in the article text. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch Cielquiparle. Here are relevant quotes: "On 21 February 2023, Russia suspended its participation" and "On 21 February 2023, ... Putin delivered". Dying, would you like to suggest a correction? Radzy0 (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, interesting point, Cielquiparle. the timing is actually mentioned in one of the footnotes.

It was initially reported that the missile test had apparently occurred while Biden was in Ukraine, but a U.S. official later stated that the test had occurred on 18 February 2023, three days before Putin's speech.

i had mentioned this in a footnote because i thought it would be appropriate to include the additional detail regarding the timing in the article, since there isn't a 200-character limit there, but had also felt that mentioning the additional detail in the body of the article would break the flow of that paragraph. i had deliberately used "shortly before" in the article body to avoid explicitly stating the timing there, since that sentence begins with "On the same day as but after Putin's address", so using "days before" there would assert that u.s. officials believed, on the day of the address, that the failure had occurred days before it. (this might actually be true, but does not appear to be what cnn initially reported, and i haven't found any reliable source stating it.)
do all of the facts of the hook actually have to be mentioned in the article body? i don't mind complying if that is a rule at dyk, but i admittedly was either unaware of it or had forgotten about it, and i just wanted to make sure that this was the case before i started editing that paragraph, because it took me a while to make sure that everything there was accurate, neutral, and likely to not be misinterpreted. dying (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dying: How about simply adding "It later emerged..." or "A U.S. official later stated..." at the end of that paragraph? Cielquiparle (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cielquiparle, after some thought, i ended up simply moving the footnote text into the body and placing it in parentheses. i felt that just adding what you proposed to the end of the paragraph would end up making the second half of the footnote appear redundant, but removing the second half of the footnote would then make the remaining part of the footnote feel unfinished. dying (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dying: Thanks for resolving. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for ALT2c. Radzy0 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading with an eye toward promotion. The article is WP:OVERCITEed. Not a DYK issue but something to keep in mind. Also we should not cite the lead but we should summarize the article. WP:LEADCITE Bruxton (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

This title needs adjusting. Which president? Which assembly? Who knows how many countries have presidents and a federal assembly. In this case, this would probably best be at 2023 Presidential Address to the Russian Federal Assembly, which is far more precise. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Agreed, and Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly and 2020 Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly should also follow. –Vipz (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, i had been wondering the same thing you did when i was trying to determine what title to use for this article, so thanks for bringing this issue up. as Vipz's comment suggests, the title of this article was based on "2020 Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly", which presumably was based on "Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly". the latter actually used to be titled "Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly (Russia)", but was renamed in 2018. if you can get consensus for renaming that article, i would be happy to rename this article to conform.
as an aside, if "Russian" is to be used as a premodifier, i think the capitalization should be "Presidential address to the Russian federal assembly", as i believe the current capitalization is being used because it is a proper name. dying (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I can't find an analogy to compare this to atm, but I'm pretty sure this isn't how it's supposed to work. That's not just any federal assembly, as uncapitalized common nouns suggest, but the Federal Assembly. That said, searching for examples, I've only seen the practice of appending (<country>) at the end, and that may work for these articles as well - 2023 Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly (Russia). –Vipz (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vipz, i think far too much has been written about whether, in constructions like this, the noun following the premodifier should be capitalized, so i'll try to keep this short, especially since i don't particularly care how the russian federal assembly is capitalized in the title, but had only brought it up to note that i think the 'a' in "address" should not be, if "Russian" is used as a premodifier. i didn't use the capitalization "Russian Federal Assembly" above because (1) i believe the english name of the body is "Federal Assembly" (though it may also be referred to as "Federal Assembly of Russia" or "Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation", as seen here) and i thought that using the capitalization "Russian Federal Assembly" would falsely suggest that "Russian Federal Assembly" was the proper name of the body; and (2) i have noticed that, on wikipedia, when an adjectival form of a country is used as a premodifier for a noun, if the noun has not been introduced before and it is unclear whether it is being used specifically or generically, the first use is often considered generic.
that being said, if you look at the national legislatures category, you can see that most of the titles try to avoid the issue (if the english name of the legislature does not begin with an adjectival form of a nation in the first place) by using a disambiguator of the form "of x" or "(x)". in particular, the title of the article for russia's legislature is "Federal Assembly (Russia)". i'd actually prefer to sidestep the issue as well, and if this article is renamed to include a disambiguator, i had thought that what you suggested works best, and would also follow the title of the article on the assembly as well as the previous title of the article on the speeches. i had only mentioned the issue regarding capitalization because Peacemaker67's suggestion used "Russian" as a premodifier. dying (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dying and @Peacemaker67: should we start a move request to gather more attention, then? –Vipz (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vipz, i'm assuming you mean starting a move request for the article on the speeches in general, or one for all three articles mentioned above, since for now, one for just this article would likely be opposed due to the article on the speeches not having a similar disambiguator in its title. that sounds fine. i should note that i actually don't have an opinion on whether or not the pages should be moved, so i probably wouldn't !vote, but i think the title for this article should conform with the outcome of such a move request, regardless of whether or not this article is explicitly included in the request. if it is moved, i'd prefer the title you suggested for the reasons already mentioned. dying (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Presidential_Address_to_the_Federal_Assembly&oldid=1196947933"